Media as the main branch of society that sway Gender Essay Example for Free

Media as the main branch of society that sway Gender Essay In the current era, media had been greatly influencing the society. Through the variety of information and mediums the industry could utilize, seemingly media could create numerous impact in the lives of many people. In the movie Bodyguard which was publicized in 1992 provides one of the most distinct examples which could be highlighted to see the power of the media. In terms of gender topics, media had been the main industry that has the authority to proclaim what should or should not be for various genders in the society. The movie Bodyguard starred the most popular actors during the early 90s such as Kevin Costner and Whitney Houston. Both of these actors have their own image which the masses view of them. Therefore, there is an immediate connotation when it comes to the characters they portray. Kevin Costner is known to be a very good actor who had been acknowledged in many award giving bodies. Whitney Houston on the other hand is a very popular singer who is idolized by many. In the movie, Houston sort of, portrayed herself while Costner captured the role of a masculine, â€Å"only-doing-his-job† body guard who is very much protective of Whitney for the reason that she has a stalker. Houston on the other hand is a famous singer who was being harassed by a stalker. Thus seeing the main personalities, the characters does portray a very â€Å"in-the-box† nuance of what a male and a female should be. Just like in fairytales, the woman must be saved by a man in order for her to get through the evil witches who were often abusing the helpless lead character. In conclusion, media and the concept of media go together. The perspective of the media of what should or should not be is immediately absorbed by the society. Moreover, the movie Bodyguard supports the concept of the typical male and female responsibilities which is practiced by the society. Thus, the media supports this type of perspective of gender which strictly assumes that men are strong and protective while women are vulnerable and weak. References Costner, K. , Kasdan, L. Wilson, J. (Producers). Jackson, M. (Director). (1992). Bodyguard. [Motion Picture]. United States: Warner Brothers.

The Boy Who Will Never Be a Man :: Free Essay Writer

The Boy Who Will Never Be a Man I believe The Man Who Was Almost A Man is an example of imprudent youth. The story is of a boy who wants a gun for all the wrong reasons. His thoughts are of manhood. He associate a gun with manhood, yet fails miserably to understand the concept of manhood or the responsibility that’s closely connected with it. On the surface, the message of the story is that of a stupid, deceitful, unkind, violent, black boy with dreams of becoming a man with all its grandeur. As is seen in the text when the protagonist witness men in the field shooting their guns. The protagonist, known as Dave, decides promptly that he will purchase a gun and impress the men with his skill in handling the weapon (655). We see that Dave wishes dearly to gain the respect and power so closely associated with manhood. This man who is almost a man, deserves to be called â€Å"boy† at 17 and forever. Dave is not ready to be a man, he is not ready to except the responsibility allied with the designation of being a man. The story ends with a kindly white man being cheated out of $50 and the protagonist, the black boy-man, riding off into the night with nothing but anger, a gun and a long track record of poor judgment. Upon further examination, Dave appears to be less responsible for his shortcomings. His poverty is deep and his parents are awful and he has no future. In his environment there is practically no way he could grow up and develop self-respect and the respect of others. Dave is treated just like a mule, given no responsibility, not even the chance to hold on to part of his earnings. This is seen when Joe, the store owner ask â€Å"your ma letting you have your own money now?†(656). Dave doesn’t want a gun; he wants to be a man. This is a natural, healthy desire that hasn't yet been beat out of him. The fact that he thinks a gun will do the trick is ignorant, but the only solution his environment can have him imagine. Dave’s belief that having a gun will make him a man is ridiculous and repellent but as the story turns out, his pursuit of having a gun is his ticket out of town, his only hope for becoming a man.

Crime and punishment morally ambigous character Essay

Several morally ambiguous characters played different vital roles in Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. In fact, most characters illustrated in this twisted novel can be evaluated as possesing â€Å"good† and â€Å"evil† qualities. Sonia Marmeladov is especially ambiguous and important in this novel. Her contradicting social and moral statuses along with her contrasting roles as a saintly liberator and sinner allowed Sonia to play a crucial role throughout the novel. Not only that but her character further strengthens the theme of religious awakening. At times Sonia’s character becomes hard to categorize as â€Å"good† or â€Å"evil† because of her actions. The first descriptions the reader gets of Sonia are from her drunk father, Marmeladov. She has lived her life with little money, poor housing conidtions described as having â€Å"every sign of povery† (294). Sonia tries to make an honest living by making linen shirts but â€Å"do you suppose that a respectable poor girl can earn much by hard work? Not fifteen farthings a day can she earn†(15). Not merely enough to support a family along with her drunk father’s habits. So Sonia eventually becomes a prositute in order to to support her family and gains a â€Å"yellow ticket† (16) This is what gained Sonia her title as a sinner and which puts her character at question. However, Marmeladov explains to Raskolnikov how Sonia goes to them â€Å"mostly after dark, she comforts Katerina Ivanorna and gives her all she can†( 16). This part of Sonia’s character depicts her as a loving daughter willing to sacrifice herself to save her family. This portrayal in some ways resembles Christ as â€Å"He himself bore our sins† in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness. † He sarcrificed himself as she sacrifies herself. Does that change the fact that she is committing a sin? No of course not and that is exactly where the conflict of her morality takes place. The world sees her in â€Å"such an attire†(163)which puts her to shame in her â€Å"guady finery† (163) Yet the reader sees a young, timid girl who was pushed to take drastic decisions in her life. It is Sonia’s actions which are â€Å"evil† but her purpose and pure soul make her more saintly than most of the character’s in the novel. Because her character plays this role, it is her who helps Raskolnikov find his religious faith and who leads him to finally come clean later on in the book. Another circumstance where Sonya is morally ambiguous is where she has to decide to either have a relationship with Raskolnikov, or leave him out of the picture when he tells her that it is he who murdered the pawnbroker. Sonya knows that it is right to help Raskolnikov because he could be lost and go even deeper into his madness. However, Sonya knows that Raskolnikov is a killer and it would be wrong to be associated with somebody who knowingly commits sins as extravagant as murder. Sonya is also aware that Raskolnikov has issues and his madness could drive him to do other things that could lead to even worse consequences. Sonia does tell Raskolnikov that he must turn himself in and confess his sins but she also hugs him and kisses him as to comfort him. Her odd response is to tell Raskolnikov â€Å"I will follow you, I will follow you everywhere†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ I’ll follow you to Siberia† (407). As she tries to find a valid excuse as to why he killed those women, she finds that there was no good intentions in his mind, yet she still sticks by Raskolnikov’s side. This response leaves the reader wondering whether Sonia is doing this to help a lost soul and play her role as a saintly liberator or does her love blind her and is she simply not caring that what Raskolnikov committed was murder. However, even though the last part of the book depicts Sonia as an accomplice to a morally wrong crime, the epilogue illustrates her as a saintly liberator. In Siberia, the image which she carried back in part one and part two of the book are stripped and she is loved by the prisoners in the camp. They even called her â€Å"little mother Sofya Semyonovna†(538), and although it is clearly stated that Sonia herself did nothing special to be liked, their preference for her depicts that they sensed her moral â€Å"goodness. † Without direct statement, Sonia herself was the reason why Raskolnikov felt in some way his religious reawakening. Through her unconditional love, she and her role made this â€Å"story of a gradual renewal of a man† (542) happen. Dostoevsky theme of religion was carried on and developed by Sonia’s character through her moral ambiguity. Though her character appears to be immoral in several cases, in the epilogue the reader sees how it all comes together and how Doestoevsky uses Sonya illustrates important social and political issues that were of concern to him, such as the treatment of women, the effects of poverty, the importance of religious faith, and the importance of devotion to family.

Civil War Prisoner Exchanges and the Dix-Hill Cartel

During the U.S. Civil War, both sides participated in the exchange of prisoners of war who had been captured by the other side.  Although there was not a formal agreement in place, prisoner exchanges had taken place as a result of kindness between opposing leaders after a hard-fought battle.   Initial Agreement for Prisoner Exchanges Originally, the Union refused to formally enter into an official agreement that would establish guidelines pertaining to the structure of how these prisoner exchanges would occur. This was due to the fact that  the U.S. government had steadfastly refused to recognize the Confederate States of America as a valid governmental entity, and there was a fear that entering into any formal agreement could be viewed as legitimizing the Confederacy as a separate entity.  However, the capture of over a thousand Union soldiers at the First Battle of Bull Run in late July 1861 created the impetus for public push to conduct formal prisoner exchanges.  In December 1861, in a joint resolution the U.S. Congress called for President Lincoln to establish parameters for prisoner exchanges with the Confederacy.  Over the next several months, Generals from both forces made unsuccessful attempts to draft a unilateral prison exchange agreement. Creation of the Dix-Hill Cartel Then in July 1862, Union Major General John A. Dix and Confederate Major General D. H. Hill met in the James River in Virginia at Haxalls Landing and came to an agreement whereby all soldiers were assigned an exchange value based upon their military rank.  Under what would become known as the Dix-Hill Cartel, exchanges of Confederate and Union Army soldiers would be made as follows: Soldiers of equivalent ranks would be exchanged on a one to one value,Corporals and sergeants were worth two privates,Lieutenants were worth four privates,A captain was worth six privates,A major was worth eight privates,A lieutenant-colonel was worth ten privates,A colonel was worth fifteen privates,A brigadier general was worth twenty privates,A major general was worth forty privates, andA commanding general was worth sixty privates. The Dix-Hill Cartel also assigned similar exchange values of Union and Confederate naval officers and seamen based upon their equivalent rank to their respective armies. Prisoner Exchange and the Emancipation Proclamation These exchanges were made to alleviate the issues and costs associated with maintaining captured soldiers by both sides, as well as the logistics of moving the prisoners.  However, in September 1862, President Lincoln issued a Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation that provided in part that if the Confederates failed to end fighting and rejoin the U.S. prior to January 1, 1863  then all slaves held in the Confederate States would become free. In addition, it called for the enlistment of black soldier into service in the Union Army. This prompted Confederate States of America President Jefferson Davis to issue a proclamation on December 23, 1862 which provided that there would be no exchange of either captured black soldiers or their white officers. A mere nine days later – January 1, 1863 – President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which called for the eradication of slavery and for the enlistment of freed slaves into the Union Army. In what has historically been considered President Lincoln’s reaction to December 1862 Proclamation of Jefferson Davis, the Lieber Code was put into effect in April 1863 addressing humanity during wartime with the provision that all prisoners, regardless of color, would be treated alike. Then the Congress of the Confederate States passed a resolution in May 1863 that codified President Davis’ December 1862 proclamation that the Confederacy would not exchange captured black soldiers.  The results of this legislative action became evident in July 1863 when a number of captured U.S. black soldiers from a Massachusetts regiment were not exchanged along with their fellow white prisoners. The End of Prisoner Exchanges During the Civil War   The U.S. suspended the Dix-Hill Cartel on July 30, 1863 when President Lincoln issued an order providing that until such time as the Confederates treated black soldiers the same as white soldiers there would no longer be any prisoner exchanges between the U.S. and the Confederacy. This  effectively ended prisoner exchanges and unfortunately resulted in captured soldiers from both sides being subjected to horrific and inhumane conditions in prisons such as Andersonville in the South and Rock Island in the North.